Federal Court of Australia decisions
The Federal Court of Australia is a superior court of record. In employment matters, it hears appeals from FWC decisions, civil penalty proceedings brought by the Fair Work Ombudsman for serious contraventions, and complex underpayment cases.
What the Federal Court does
The Federal Court hears civil penalty proceedings against employers for breaches of the Fair Work Act (e.g. systematic underpayment, sham contracting, adverse action), appeals from Federal Circuit & Family Court and Fair Work Commission, and class actions.
Why these decisions matter
Federal Court penalties have set the headline numbers for Australian wage theft and underpayment cases — multi-million dollar fines, named directors, and signed enforceable undertakings. These decisions shape how employers behave.
All FCA decisions in our corpus
← Back to the full corpusthe Applicant v Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd
The Applicant, a WHS & QA Compliance Manager/Officer, sued Roadworx Surfacing Pty Ltd in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), alleging adverse action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act. She claimed her employment termination was due to exercising workplace rights between August 2024 and January 15, 2025. Roadworx terminated the Applicant’s employment on January 16, 2025, with pay in lieu of notice, and again on January 21, 2025, for alleged misconduct. The primary judge found the Applicant had exercised a workplace right and proposed to exercise another, but the termination wasn't due to those actions.
B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (No 4)
B.M.D. Constructions Pty Ltd sought to strike out paragraphs in a defence filed by the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) regarding alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act and the Competition and Consumer Act. The CFMEU had pleaded 'it does not know' in response to B.M.D.'s allegations concerning the attendance of CFMEU officials at a construction site. B.M.D. argued this was an abuse of process, claiming the information needed for a responsive plea was available to the CFMEU. The Federal Court (Meagher J) made orders striking out those paragraphs in February 2026.
Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited (Administration Extension Application)
The Transport Workers’ Union (TWU) brought proceedings against Qantas Airways Limited and Qantas Ground Services Pty Ltd regarding an unlawful outsourcing decision made in late 2020. Following a lengthy legal process, including reinstatement applications and compensation assessments, the Court had previously set a deadline for distributing funds to affected workers. The Administrator of the settlement scheme is now seeking orders varying those deadlines due to delays in the administration of compensation payments, citing issues like unexpectedly large numbers of independent medical examinations.
Qube Ports Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
the Applicant worked for Qube Ports Pty Ltd in Dampier, Western Australia, changing roles from Guaranteed Wage Employee to Variable Salary Employee and then to Provisional Full Time Salaried Employee. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union claimed Qube failed to pay overtime correctly under the Qube Ports Pty Ltd Port of Dampier Enterprise Agreement 2020. An industrial magistrate initially ruled in favour of the union, finding the Applicant was entitled to overtime at a 'Supplementary Employees' hourly rate once he reached 1820 hours annually, regardless of his employment category during the year.
the Applicant v Fair Work Ombudsman
the Applicant appealed decisions made against him regarding Foot & Thai Massage Pty Ltd (FTM), a massage business he directed. The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) initially found FTM and the Respondent had contravened the Fair Work Act, including underpaying employees classified as Health Professional Level 1. A later decision imposed penalties. the Applicant represented himself at trial and argued issues with evidentiary rules and potential bias from the primary judge.
the Applicant v WS Remedial Group (NSW) Pty Ltd
Matthew Jackson commenced proceedings against WS Remedial Group (NSW) Pty Ltd, Sharn Piper, and Waterstop Solutions (NSW) Pty Ltd alleging adverse action, breach of contract, and other workplace-related issues following an incident on July 30, 2025. He initially filed a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which was not resolved through conciliation. The certificate allowing court proceedings was issued on November 11, 2025. Jackson's originating application and statement of claim were lodged one day late, on November 26, 2025. He subsequently sought an extension of time to file.
the Applicant v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4)
This case, Gall v Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited (No 4), concerns a class action lawsuit brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The Applicant, Mr Gall, and other employees of Domino’s franchisees alleged that Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Limited engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. They claimed this conduct caused them loss and damage, specifically unpaid award entitlements. The case also examined whether a clause in a certified agreement could be inconsistent with the Fair Work Act 2009.
DP World (Fremantle) Ltd v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
DP World (Fremantle) Ltd proposed relocating quay crane drivers from the crane cabin to a remote desk, allowing them to operate cranes using joysticks and driver assist features. This project, known as the Remote Quay Crane Project (RQC), aims to improve efficiency but raised concerns about job security and adherence to the DP World Fremantle Enterprise Agreement 2024. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (MUA) argued that the changes triggered provisions in Appendix 4 of the agreement related to 'significant change to the mode of operation,' particularly concerning automation. DP World contended these provisions didn't apply.
Ardeen Pty Ltd v Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Ardeen Pty Ltd (McDonald's franchisees) and two related companies sought judicial review of a Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision granting a 'supported bargaining authorisation' to the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA). This authorisation compelled them and their approximately 4,500 employees to bargain together for a multi-enterprise agreement. The FWC’s decision meant they couldn't negotiate separate enterprise agreements. The applicants argued the FWC misconstrued legislation and failed to consider relevant factors like competitive disadvantages.
the Applicant v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal)
The Applicant sought leave to amend her originating application and statement of claim in a proceeding relating to alleged adverse action by Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd and related entities. The claims arise from her employment at the Coppabella Coal Mine. Following an initial interlocutory application, the primary judge made orders regarding the filing of documents. The Applicant subsequently sent additional documents to the court and parties, which were approved for filing. The primary judge dismissed the application but granted provisional leave to file a further amended statement of claim with limitations. Peabody Energy sought costs related to the failed amendment application.
the Applicant v Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd (Liability)
the Applicant, a concert pianist, commenced legal action against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) and the Respondent, the MSO's Chief Operating Officer. This followed the Applicant making statements about Israel committing war crimes during a piano recital in August 2024. The MSO subsequently cancelled his upcoming performance, sent a message to attendees explaining the cancellation, attempted to reinstate him with conditions regarding onstage statements, and published a statement about the cancelled concert. the Applicant alleges these actions constituted adverse action under the Fair Work Act.
WorkPac Pty Ltd v Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation
WorkPac Pty Ltd, a company employing workers in the coal mining industry, disputes how levies for long service leave are calculated for its eligible employees. The Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation administers the scheme and initially claimed WorkPac had underpaid levies. This case concerns the calculation of 'eligible wages' and 'base rate of pay' for 10 sample employees during a period from July 2012 to December 2023, focusing on whether rostered or ordinary hours should be used in calculations.
TESA Group Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union
TESA Group Pty Ltd and two related companies appealed a Federal Court decision regarding a judicial review application. The appeal concerned whether a Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission should have recused themselves from a case involving the Mining and Energy Union. The appellant argued that the Deputy President was biased due to their past parliamentary involvement, relying on extracts from Hansard (records of parliament) as evidence. The respondent contended that these extracts were inadmissible due to parliamentary privilege.
the Applicant v Whistle Funds Management Company Pty Ltd
the Applicant initially worked as an independent contractor for Whistle Funds Management Company Pty Ltd from 2012. From July 2017, he held a role as Fund Manager and later became Managing Director in April 2021. the Applicant commenced proceedings against both Whistle Funds (the first respondent) and the Second Respondent, alleging he was misclassified as an independent contractor when he should have been considered an employee. He sought entitlements including accrued annual leave, superannuation contributions, long service leave, and compensation for unfair dismissal.
the Applicant v H&M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd
Javana Johnson commenced proceedings against H&M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd (H&M) in February 2026, alleging general protections under the Fair Work Act. Shortly after, H&M filed an interlocutory application seeking suppression and non-publication orders to prevent media reporting of the case documents. This application was made without argument before a Registrar who made interim orders including a suppression order. The applicant’s solicitor had previously received communications from H&M indicating they would defend the case fully and were unconcerned about media reporting.
Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union v GC Crane Hire Pty Ltd as Trustee for GA Caelli Discretionary Trust
Leonard Auld and Peter McHenry were employees of GC Crane Hire, a crane hire business. They were made redundant on September 27, 2023. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (the Union) alleges that GC Crane Hire breached the Enterprise Agreement (EA), resulting in underpayments and other issues related to their termination. GC Crane Hire admits some of the underpayment conduct but disputes certain aspects of the claims regarding notice periods, redundancy payments, and accrued leave entitlements. The dispute involves interpreting clauses within the EA concerning notice periods, severance pay, personal/carer’s leave, and 'waiting time' entitlements.
the Applicant v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)
The Applicant worked for the Commonwealth (Centrelink and Child Support Agency) from 2013 to 2021. She raised concerns about workplace issues, including the behaviour of a colleague, Omar Bahemia. The Commonwealth had complaints management policies in place. The Applicant initially held an irregular/intermittent employee role before transitioning to an APS3 position. A personal relationship with her colleague occurred between 2014 and 2016. She commenced two proceedings against the Commonwealth in 2022, concerning how her complaints were handled.
the Applicant v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
the Applicant commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) in March 2025, alleging her dismissal from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Bank) was unlawful. A settlement was reached where the Bank agreed to pay the Applicant an amount equivalent to six weeks' pay, and the Applicant signed a deed of release, which included clauses releasing the Bank from claims and indemnifying them against future claims. The Applicant subsequently filed an appeal in the Federal Court of Australia, which was initially treated as an application for leave to appeal due to procedural issues.
the Applicant v Beiler Constructions Pty Ltd as trustee for Fox Trading Trust
the Applicant, a carpenter apprentice employed by Beiler Constructions Pty Ltd, brought claims against the company and its director, alleging sexual harassment and underpayment of wages. She also claimed adverse action related to her removal from a worksite. The Applicant alleged two colleagues engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and that she was removed from a site due to a relationship with another employee. The employer denied the allegations but later conceded vicarious liability if the harassment occurred.
the Applicant v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The Applicant brought proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) alleging violations of several Australian laws, including the Fair Work Act 2009, the Privacy Act 1988, and the Copyright Act 1968. The ABC sought summary dismissal of the proceedings, arguing the Applicant had no reasonable prospect of success. The Applicant is representing himself.
the Applicant v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd
the Applicant, a casual trolley collector for Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd, was terminated on February 9, 2024. He alleges his termination and prior treatment were unlawful under various discrimination and workplace laws, stemming from an incident where he became unwell at work and a subsequent verbal altercation with a co-worker, Zachary Cooper, who allegedly made racist remarks. the Applicant claims Cooper photographed him while unwell and reported it to management. Coles is seeking summary judgment against the Applicant’s claims.
Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia Incorporated v United Workers’ Union
The Ambulance Employees Association of Western Australia (AEAWA) applied to be registered as an organisation under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. The United Workers' Union (UWU) applied to have that registration application summarily dismissed. A Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission dismissed the AEAWA's application, and the Commission's Full Bench upheld that decision. The Commission treated the AEAWA as an 'enterprise association' because a majority of its members were employed in a single enterprise, and concluded it was therefore ineligible to register as an employee association. The AEAWA sought judicial review in the Federal Court, arguing the Commission had misread the legislation. The Victorian Ambulance Union intervened in support of the AEAWA.
Western Chinese Language School Incorporated v Fair Work Ombudsman
Western Chinese Language School Incorporated (WCLS), a community language school, received a compliance notice in September 2022 from a Fair Work Inspector. The notice alleged WCLS had breached the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award), specifically by underpaying penalty rates for Saturday and public holiday work. WCLS was required to calculate and rectify those underpayments by November 2022. WCLS did not comply. The Fair Work Ombudsman then commenced proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court against WCLS and its then-Chairperson, Baoquan Chen. The primary court found both liable and imposed penalties. WCLS appealed to the Full Federal Court on six grounds, including that the SCHADS Award did not cover community language schools, that the compliance notice was legally deficient, and that the primary judge wrongly refused WCLS leave to amend its defence.
the Applicant v Posh N Polished Pty Ltd
Lida Peymani was employed by Posh N Polished Pty Ltd as a salon manager and cosmetic tattooist from September 2024, on a salary of $81,000 plus commission. In May 2025, she sent her employer a written proposal requesting either a pay increase or a mutual separation. She alleges the director responded with verbal pressure and imposed commission reductions. A dispute followed, during which she says she was demoted, locked out of company systems, and ultimately asked not to return. She regards this as constructive dismissal. She initially filed with the Fair Work Commission, then brought a general protections court application in the Federal Court. Because she filed that court application outside the 14-day statutory time limit, she needed the court's permission to proceed. She appeared without a lawyer.
the Applicant v McDonald’s Australia Ltd
A class action was filed in the Federal Court of Australia in 2023 on behalf of current and former managers at corporate-owned and franchisee-owned McDonald's restaurants. The claim covers the period 6 December 2017 to 3 February 2020. The core allegation is that these managers were not paid for work performed before their rostered start time or after their rostered finish time. McDonald's Australia Ltd and one franchisee, Pollburg Pty Ltd, have actively defended the case. The court held a hearing on 24 April 2026 to determine the scope of an initial trial, including which group members' claims should be tested and whether the question of 'serious contravention' under the Fair Work Act 2009 should be resolved at that trial.
the Applicant v City of Hobart
Paulsen brought a general protections court application against the City of Hobart under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was not filed within the statutory time limit set by the Act. Paulsen applied for an extension of time under section 370(a)(ii) of the Act. The case came before the Federal Court of Australia, which considered whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay in filing.
the Applicant v Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Costs)
the Applicant, who represented himself (a litigant in person), brought proceedings against Chandler Macleod Group Limited under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). After the substantive matter was resolved, Chandler Macleod applied to the Federal Court of Australia for a costs order against the Applicant. The court considered two questions: whether the Applicant had started the proceedings without reasonable cause, and whether any unreasonable act or omission by the Applicant caused Chandler Macleod to incur legal costs. The court also considered what weight, if any, should be given to the fact that the Applicant was self-represented.
Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Chief Commissioner of Police (Victoria)
The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) brought a dispute about how overtime entitlements should be calculated under an enterprise agreement covering Victoria Police officers. The central question was whether short periods of overtime worked across a fortnight, each individually below a 30-minute threshold, could be added together to trigger a payment entitlement. the Chief Commissioner of Police argued that only continuous periods of at least 30 minutes counted. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court on appeal, which also considered whether the Court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Extension of Time)
The Fair Work Ombudsman filed a notice of appeal in the Federal Court of Australia and then applied for orders relating to how that notice could be served on the respondent, New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd. Specifically, the Ombudsman sought three procedural orders: that service be treated as having occurred by a deemed or substituted method under the Federal Court Rules 2011; that the usual requirement to serve the notice of appeal be dispensed with; and that extra time be allowed for service of the notice of appeal. The application concerned procedural steps in the appeal process rather than the underlying merits of any workplace dispute.
Fair Work Ombudsman v the Respondent (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Penalty)
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought a penalty proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia against the Respondent following findings that the Respondent had contravened sections 343, 346 and 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Those provisions protect employees from adverse action taken to coerce them or because they have exercised, or proposed to exercise, workplace rights. The case became known as the Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case. The penalty hearing required the court to assess the nature, extent and circumstances of the contraventions, any loss or damage suffered, the Respondent's contrition, prior contraventions, and the need for deterrence. The court also considered the double-jeopardy principle under section 556, which prevents a person being penalised twice for the same conduct.
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd sought clarification from the Federal Court about how to calculate penalty rates and overtime under its enterprise agreement. The central dispute was whether certain allowances paid to employees should be counted as part of the 'base hourly rate' when working out those penalty and overtime amounts. A secondary question was whether a waiting time penalty provision, which applies when 'wages' are not paid on time, also applied to unpaid allowances.
the Applicant v Fair Work Commission
The Applicant brought an interlocutory application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking the recusal of a decision-maker at the Fair Work Commission. The Applicant argued that there was either actual bias or apprehended bias on the part of the relevant member, and that procedural fairness had been denied in the underlying Commission proceedings. The application came before the Federal Court as a challenge to the Commission's conduct rather than to a final substantive decision.
the Applicant v Macquarie Bank Limited
The Applicant brought a discrimination claim in the Federal Court of Australia against Macquarie Bank Limited and individual respondents. The individual respondents had not been named as respondents in the original complaint lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), though they had been notified of the complaint as persons subject to adverse allegations under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The individual respondents applied for summary dismissal of the claims against them on that basis. A separate application was also made to strike out paragraphs in the Applicant's statement of claim that went beyond the scope of the original AHRC complaint.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against Jats Joint Pty Ltd concerning the interpretation of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award 2010. The central dispute was whether a night shift loading applied to shifts worked before or after a 'sleepover' period, whether a sleepover counts as 'work' under the Award, and whether a sleepover is itself a 'shift'. The case turned on how the Award's provision, that night shift loading is payable for the 'whole of such shift', applies where a shift spans midnight to 6.00 am but includes a sleepover.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Torrens University Australia Limited
The Fair Work Ombudsman issued a compliance notice to Torrens University Australia Limited under section 716(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The notice concerned how the university was paying casual academic staff for lecturing work. The dispute turned on the correct interpretation of the Higher Education Industry – Academic Staff – Award 2010 and its 2020 successor. Specifically, it concerned the meaning of 'associated working time' built into the hourly payment rates for casual lecturers. The matter came before the Full Federal Court on appeal.
the Applicant v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
This case involves an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The Applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had upheld the Respondent's refusal to grant her a Student (Temporary) visa (Subclass 590). The appeal centred on whether the primary judge was correct to find that a procedural notice issued by the Tribunal under section 359 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was valid, and whether the Tribunal had additional obligations to inform the Applicant of something before making its decision.
the Applicant v CDC Geelong Pty Ltd
A self-represented litigant, Rizkalla, brought a general protections claim under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) against CDC Geelong Pty Ltd and related respondents. The claim sought pecuniary penalties for alleged contraventions of civil penalty provisions. The second to fourth respondents were alleged to have been involved in those contraventions. The matter came before the Federal Court on the respondents' application to strike out Rizkalla's amended statement of claim under rule 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), on the basis that the pleading was deficient. The pleading apparently incorporated cross-references to a schedule of particulars.
the Applicant v Technology One Limited (No 7)
This case is the seventh set of proceedings arising from a general protections dispute between the Applicant and Technology One Limited. After the substantive matter was resolved, Technology One applied for a costs order under section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key event was a Calderbank offer, which is a formal settlement offer made outside court that can affect who pays costs later, of $2.2 million made by Technology One to the Applicant during the trial. The Applicant did not accept the offer. The Federal Court was asked to decide whether that rejection amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order against the Applicant.
the Applicant v IP Australia
the Applicant brought a claim against IP Australia, arguing she had been constructively dismissed under section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because their employer's conduct left them with no reasonable choice but to leave. The Fair Work Commission found there was no constructive dismissal. the Applicant then sought permission to appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission, which refused permission. She then applied to the Federal Court of Australia, seeking judicial review of the Full Bench's decision on the basis that it was affected by jurisdictional error, meaning the Commission had exceeded or misapplied its legal authority.
the Applicant v Chandler Macleod Group Limited
the Applicant brought a claim in the Federal Court of Australia against Chandler Macleod Group Limited and various other respondents. The case came before the court on applications by the respondents for summary judgment and to strike out or set aside the Applicant's claim. The respondents argued that the Originating Application and Statement of Claim had no reasonable prospect of success. Central to the dispute was the Applicant's attempt to relitigate matters that had previously been resolved through deeds of settlement and release. the Applicant also sought to have those deeds set aside, but the court found that claim was inadequately pleaded. The claims also faced expiry issues, though the source text is truncated at that point.
the Applicant v Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd (No 2)
The Applicant brought a case in the Federal Court of Australia against Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd and two associated individual respondents. The case concerned alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), specifically failures to keep proper employee records, failures to provide payslips, and failures to pay annual leave loading. The first respondent company admitted to the contraventions, which were carried out by the second and third respondents. The admissions were made after the matter had already been listed for trial.
the Applicant v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 2)
The Applicant brought a claim against Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). During the proceedings, the Applicant made an interlocutory application seeking leave to further amend the originating application and statement of claim. In the course of that application, the Applicant provided two further amended statements of claim to the Respondents and supplied extensive material. The Applicant also filed a fifth further amended statement of claim in breach of court orders. The Respondents sought a costs order against the Applicant under section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which limits when costs can be awarded in workplace matters.
Offshore Employers Association Limited v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
The Offshore Employers Association and the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union were parties to an enterprise agreement covering offshore workers. A dispute arose and was referred to the Fair Work Commission for arbitration. The Commission made an arbitral award. A preliminary question then came before the Federal Court of Australia: did the Commission's award concern the rights of one particular employee, or did it apply to all employees covered by the enterprise agreement? A related issue was whether the parties had widened the scope of the original dispute by agreement after it was first referred to the Commission, and whether any such widening was within the Commission's lawful authority.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Costs)
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and a second respondent under the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to conduct at the Kwinana Bulk Jetty. The primary proceedings concluded with the court finding the Applicant (the CFMEU) not liable for the actions of the Second Respondent. Following that outcome, a costs application was made. The question before the Federal Court was whether the Applicant's rejection of a settlement offer made during the proceedings amounted to an 'unreasonable act' under section 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act, which would allow a costs order to be made against it. The court considered the factors set out in Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime in assessing whether the rejection of that offer was unreasonable.
the Applicant v Fair Work Commission
The Applicant applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an interlocutory injunction. The injunction sought to stop the Fair Work Commission from continuing appeal proceedings and from requiring the Applicant to participate in those proceedings without first lawfully considering a request for reasonable adjustments. The application was partly in the nature of a stay of the Commission proceedings. The Court considered whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and whether exceptional circumstances had been shown.
the Applicant v Swinburne University of Technology
the Applicant brought proceedings against Swinburne University of Technology involving matters under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). During those proceedings, he made an interlocutory application in the Federal Court seeking to restrain Swinburne from enforcing a costs order that had been made against him in the Magistrates' Court. The primary judge dismissed that interlocutory application and ordered the Applicant to pay Swinburne’s costs. the Applicant then applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an extension of time and leave to appeal that interlocutory costs order, arguing that the costs protections in section 570 of the Fair Work Act applied and prevented such a costs order being made against him.
the Applicant v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd
the Applicant brought a claim in the Federal Court of Australia against QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd, seeking declarations of right and related orders under section 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). She relied on the Court's accrued jurisdiction to support her claim for ancillary relief. The case raised questions about whether the Federal Court was the appropriate forum, particularly because a specialist tribunal existed as an alternative avenue for the dispute. The matter came before the Court for determination of those jurisdictional and discretionary questions.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Super Retail Group Limited (Listing of trial)
The Fair Work Ombudsman has brought proceedings against Super Retail Group Limited in the Federal Court of Australia. This decision concerns a procedural step only: listing the matter for its final hearing. The court considered the availability of Senior Counsel retained by one of the parties when selecting suitable hearing dates.
the Applicant v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd (No 2)
the Applicant brought a general protections claim against Broadway Homes Pty Ltd after her employment was terminated. She alleged she was dismissed because she exercised, or proposed to exercise, workplace rights, including rights relating to her pay. She also alleged she was underpaid for duties she performed and was not given reasonable notice of termination. The matter was initially commenced in the Fair Work Commission in the same month as her termination before proceeding to the Federal Court. Broadway Homes conceded that a contract of employment existed between the parties.
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd applied for leave to appeal part of a Federal Court judgment. The primary judge found that Hisense contravened s 535(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and reg 3.42 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) by failing to provide the Applicant with a copy of his employment contract when he requested it. The appeal raised questions about whether an employment contract is a type of record required to be kept under reg 3.32 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), and whether a request for a copy of an employment contract triggers the Respondent's obligation to produce it.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Sushi Bay Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)
The Sushi Bay group of companies operated sushi restaurants in NSW, the ACT, and the Northern Territory under a director. From February 2016 to January 2020, the companies systematically exploited immigrant workers through false record-keeping, unreasonable wage deduction requirements, and failure to pay minimum award rates, casual loadings, annual leave loadings, overtime rates, penalty rates for weekend and public holiday work, and annual leave entitlements on termination. The Fair Work Ombudsman discovered the contraventions and the companies subsequently entered liquidation.
UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
Union members employed by UGL Rail on the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane failed to attend work on 30 April and 1 May 2024 because third parties had chained and padlocked all ingress points to the worksite. UGL refused to pay wages for those days. The union then sought arbitration before the Fair Work Commission arguing workers 'attended' and were prevented by physical obstruction. UGL sought interlocutory relief to restrain the arbitration, arguing the dispute involved civil penalty provisions only the courts could determine.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3)
Two related clothing companies (Blue Sky Kids Land Pty Ltd and Q Fay Trading Company Pty Ltd) employed the Applicant, Xing Yang, Tzu Fong Yu, and Jin Zhang. From October 2015 to June 2018, the companies failed to pay minimum rates, casual loadings, Saturday/Sunday/public holiday penalty rates, overtime rates, and superannuation contributions. Payment was irregular. The Applicant's full-time employment was terminated without notice or payment of accrued annual leave. Jin Zhang was threatened with dismissal and offered sham contractor status if she did not resign. Inspectors were hindered when company officials ordered destruction of timesheets.
Qantas Airways Limited v Australian and International Pilots Association (No 2)
Qantas Airways sought to allocate junior pilots (Second Officers Under Training or SOTs) directly to its A380 aircraft for operational reasons. The Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (LHEA10) clause 19.1.2 provides that SOTs will normally be allocated to B787, A330, or A330/A350 aircraft unless there are insufficient bids from suitably qualified pilots or such allocation is otherwise agreed with the AIPA. On 20 August 2022, when sufficient bids existed, Qantas requested the AIPA's agreement to allocate 20 SOTs to the A380. The AIPA withheld its agreement.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Yatala Labour Prison Case) (No 3)
Between August and September 2021, officers of the CFMMEU visited the Yatala Labour Prison construction site. Union officers made abusive and derogatory statements to contractor representatives, including calling them 'useless', 'incompetent', and using profanity. Officers also entered an exclusion zone when instructed not to do so. One officer made threatening statements to a site representative.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v PayPal Australia Pty Limited
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) took legal action against PayPal Australia Pty Limited concerning terms in their contracts with small businesses between September 2021 and November 2023. The 'Fee Error Term' required users to notify PayPal of any fee errors within 60 days, or PayPal wouldn’t correct them. Approximately 608,375 Business Account Contracts existed, with about 606,930 being Small Business Contracts. ASIC alleged this term was unfair and void under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth). PayPal subsequently admitted that the Fee Error Term was an unfair term.
the Applicant v the Respondent
the Applicant, a specialist in intensive care medicine, worked as Clinical Director of the Intensive Care Unit at Canberra Hospital from 2015. On 3 November 2021, she submitted four incident reports through the hospital's RiskMan health and safety reporting system about risks and potential injuries in the ICU. Following these reports, hospital management directed her to attend an independent medical examination, investigated her for alleged clinical misconduct and improper use of the reporting system, proposed her suspension, and transferred her from the ICU to an alternative medical position at another hospital.
Monash University v the Respondent
the Applicant, an academic at Monash University, was accused of plagiarism in breach of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. The University conducted investigations under procedures prescribed in the enterprise agreement. the Applicant denied the allegation and claimed the University breached procedural fairness obligations in the agreement.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (The Mordialloc Freeway Project Case)
Union officials Paul Tzimas, Gerald McCrudden, and another respondent exercised rights of entry at construction sites associated with the Mordialloc Freeway upgrade in late 2020. During these visits, they made statements and took conduct that contravened section 500 of the Fair Work Act. The CFMEU was found to be involved in each instance through its employment of these officials.
the Applicant v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (No 3)
the Applicant employees (pilots and flight attendants) brought proceedings challenging their dismissals during COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020. They alleged adverse action under the Fair Work Act and sought declarations and compensation. Virgin Australia filed interlocutory applications to strike out parts of the statement of claim for procedural deficiencies. The court found the Applicant's pleadings inadequate in several respects, particularly regarding discrimination claims.
Shergill v Singh
Seema Shergill, an Indian national, was employed as a domestic worker by Navdeep Suri Singh (Indian High Commissioner to Australia) in Canberra from 17 April 2015 to 26 May 2016. During this period, Shergill worked seven days per week for approximately 17.5 hours per day with only one hour off daily. She received no paid leave and was never allowed to take a day off. Her passport was retained by Singh throughout her employment. She was paid only AUD $2,496.08 over the entire nine-month period (approximately $276/month). She worked in Singh's residential household and received minimal access to leave the premises.
Murtagh v Corporation of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba
Michael Murtagh and Francis O'Mara were employed as teachers at Catholic schools in Queensland. Both were employed on 1 July 2019 when two enterprise agreements became operative with wage increases backdated to 1 July 2019. Murtagh resigned 6 December 2019 and O'Mara resigned 31 December 2019. The employers did not pay them the salary and superannuation increases applicable from 1 July 2019, arguing they only had to pay applicable employees still employed when the agreements came into operation.
Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Limited (Stay Application)
This proceeding addresses procedural management of a class action and concurrent representative actions concerning McDonald's workers. The class action (Elliott-Carde and Dunlop v McDonald's Australia Limited) alleges approximately 300,000 to 350,000 current and former workers of McDonald's and franchisees were not provided ten-minute rest breaks in breach of a 2013 enterprise agreement and a 2010 award. Concurrently, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association brought 16 representative proceedings under ss 539-540 of the Fair Work Act against McDonald's and franchisees involving substantially overlapping workers.
Elliott-Carde v McDonald's Australia Limited
Jade Elliott-Carde and Darcy Dunlop brought a class action against McDonald's Australia Limited on behalf of employees (and employees of franchisees) alleging that workers were not provided with ten-minute rest breaks in contravention of applicable industrial instruments (a 2013 enterprise agreement and a 2010 award) and provisions of the Fair Work Act ss 45 and 50. The class action involves an estimated 300,000 to 350,000 workers, many of whom are minors. Concurrent proceedings were brought by the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association against McDonald's and multiple franchisees.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman (The 250 East Terrace Case)
On the morning of 16 October 2019, a picket line formed at a construction site at 250 East Terrace, Adelaide. The picket was organized by a union official employed by the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU). The apparent target was a developer who owed money to Core-Form Pty Ltd, a subcontractor engaged for concreting works. A director of Core-Form participated in the picket. About 20 to 30 people protested, many wearing union clothing and holding union flags. Signs read 'PAY UR BILLS' and 'JOB DONE WHERE'S THE MONEY'. Protesters prevented a painter from accessing the site with his vehicle for approximately 19 minutes.
the Applicant v Everforex Financial Pty Ltd
the Applicant commenced proceedings in October 2020 against Everforex Financial Pty Ltd, a foreign exchange and CFD trading business where he was employed as Chief Executive Officer from January 2019 to February 2020. the Applicant claims Everforex contravened the Fair Work Act, Australian Consumer Law, and employment contract terms. Everforex brought a cross-claim alleging the Applicant made unauthorised payments, failed to return company property, and disabled the trading platform. the Applicant served Notices to Produce seeking bank statements, audited financial statements, and tax documents from Everforex for financial years 2021 and 2022.
the Applicant v Fair Work Commission
the Applicant commenced employment claims in the Fair Work Commission in March 2018, alleging unfair dismissal. His employer disputed that dismissal occurred. After multiple unsuccessful proceedings and appeals in the FWC, the Applicant lodged a racial discrimination complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. Upon termination of the complaint, he sought leave to pursue a racial discrimination claim in the Federal Court, alleging the Fair Work Commission had discriminated against him based on race.
the Applicant v Network Ten Pty Limited
the Applicant was employed by Network Ten as an Executive Producer – Entertainment earning $262,247.40 annually. She was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 29 May 2020 after a long career. She was paid $255,000 in termination entitlements including 12 weeks severance pay. She claimed entitlement to 78 weeks severance pay under the Network 10 Enterprise Agreement 2019, arguing the agreement applied to her.
the Applicant v Central Desert Regional Council (No 4)
the Applicant, a self-represented applicant, brought proceedings against Central Desert Regional Council (his former employer) alleging breach of employment contract and contraventions of the Fair Work Act. Earlier in the proceedings, the court had struck out allegations of contravention of s.340 (general protections). A mediation was ordered on 16 February 2023. the Applicant failed to engage with the mediation process, ignoring multiple emails from the Registrar and not responding to intake call attempts. He subsequently failed to attend a case management hearing on 28 April 2023, leading to dismissal of his application under r.5.23.
Langton v Eco-Growth International Pty Ltd
Scott Langton filed an originating application alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection under the Fair Work Act and also claiming relief under the Corporations Act alleging breach of officers' duties. Eco-Growth International and its respondents failed to file a defence by the 12 May 2023 court-ordered deadline. A defence was eventually filed late on 31 May 2023 without explanation or affidavit evidence.
Kelly v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane
Multiple employees of the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane were dismissed on 15 December 2021. The applicants (Krystal Kelly, Faith Munro, Siiri Lohmussar, and others) initially filed unfair dismissal applications with the Fair Work Commission, which were outside the 21-day time limit. The Commission granted an extension. The applicants later filed a discrimination claim in Federal Court alleging breach of section 351 of the Fair Work Act (discrimination grounds).
the Applicant v Platinum Distributors Australia Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed by Platinum Distributors Australia from February 2014. In June 2015, a conversation occurred about whether his employment had ended. the Applicant claimed employment continued until October 2017 and that he was owed unpaid wages. the Respondent contended employment ended in June 2015. Group certificates were later issued for 2016 and 2017, which the Applicant claimed assisted his permanent residency application.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Kiama Aged Care Centre Appeal)
Union representatives engaged in unlawful industrial action at a construction site for Kiama Aged Care Centre on 27-28 November 2018. Site representatives refused to undertake mandatory inductions and entered the worksite unaccompanied without induction, violating building industry entry requirements. A primary judge imposed total penalties of $170,000 on the union and penalties on the officials involved for breaching s.500 of the Fair Work Act.
United Firefighters' Union of Australia v the Respondent
The United Firefighters' Union of Australia brought proceedings against the Minister for Emergency Services Victoria and the State of Victoria. The union and Fire Rescue Victoria were parties to an enterprise agreement containing dispute resolution procedures. A dispute arose regarding establishment of a Registration Board. In March 2021, the union referred the dispute to the Fair Work Commission for resolution. During the Fair Work Commission process, the Minister allegedly made representations to Fire Rescue Victoria seeking to influence the stance it would take in resolving the dispute.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Fair Work Ombudsman
In November 2020, a union organiser and senior official approached the gate of a construction site at South Brisbane operated by Lendlease. The employer had instructed that a union meeting with employees be held off-site. Despite this, the Applicant positioned himself at the gate with arms outstretched to form a barrier, signalled the group to proceed, and both men entered the site without providing the required 24-hour written notice under section 487 of the Fair Work Act.
Kelly v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by Services Australia (formerly the Department of Human Services)
Brendan Kelly, a former Commonwealth employee, claimed discrimination based on sexual orientation and disability (ADHD and mental health conditions) by co-workers and supervisors at Centrelink service centres. He alleged contraventions of sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and Fair Work Act provisions. He sought declarations, damages exceeding $4 million, and civil penalties, relying partly on conduct by a university student on placement.
Delpachitra v University of Technology Sydney
Sarath Delpachitra sought leave to file a second further amended statement of claim. His original employment contract was with the University of Technology Sydney for a position in Shanghai, China at the SHU-UTS Business School. He brought claims under the Racial Discrimination Act, Age Discrimination Act, and Fair Work Act, alleging discriminatory non-renewal of his employment contract.
the Applicant v Secom Australia Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed by Secom Australia Pty Ltd on a part-time basis for approximately four months until her employment was terminated. She filed an application in the Federal Circuit Court seeking reinstatement and compensation, alleging unlawful dismissal and discrimination based on age, ethnicity, and religion.
Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Austal Ships Pty Ltd
A union official was refused entry to Austal Ships Pty Ltd premises in Western Australia on four occasions. The company said he wasn't allowed because his purpose was to obtain signatures for a petition supporting an enterprise agreement application. The union argued this fell under “holding discussions” as permitted by the Fair Work Act. The case concerned sections 501 and 502 of the Fair Work Act, relating to entry rights.
Bradshaw v BSA Limited (No 2)
Paul Bradshaw and Scott Uren, as representatives of a class of telecommunications technicians, brought a representative proceeding against BSA Limited. The applicants and group members were telecommunications technicians who installed and maintained telecommunications services. They claim that since 2003 they and group members provided their services to BSA as employees but were not paid various employee entitlements including annual leave, long service leave, penalty rates, superannuation contributions, and other benefits. BSA is a contracting company in the telecommunications industry providing technical services to telecommunications providers.
Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd
85 Degrees Coffee Australia operated retail stores and food manufacturing facilities in New South Wales. From July 2016 to June 2017, the company employed eight student interns from a Taiwanese university as part of a 12-month paid internship program arranged between the university and the company's Taiwanese parent. Eight employees worked in stores and factories but were paid only $1,650 to $1,750 per month, which represented approximately 30% of their lawful entitlements. Individual underpayments ranged from $50,000 to $58,000 per employee during the single-year period.
National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of Sydney
A senior lecturer in political economy at the University of Sydney specializing in development, human rights, and Middle East studies used social media platforms to engage in public debate and criticism of media coverage about Syria and other conflicts. Between April and May 2017, following negative media coverage triggered by his commentary on a Syrian gas attack, the senior lecturer made social media comments he characterized as corrections to what he saw as misreporting. The University issued warnings about his conduct and ultimately terminated his employment.
the Applicant v Flinders University of South Australia
the Applicant was employed as a Senior Research Fellow at Flinders University from late 2016 to early 2017 under a three-month probationary contract. During her employment, the university made various demands and requirements of her work, some of which she opposed. She alleged she had exercised 24 workplace rights and that the university had taken 19 adverse actions against her. At the end of the probationary period, the university declined to continue her employment. She sought relief claiming the university contravened the Fair Work Act.
Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd v the Respondent
the Applicant, a bus driver in Burnie, Tasmania, claimed he was underpaid for 24 Saturdays worked between October 2015 and March 2020. He argued that under the enterprise agreements (2013 and 2016), Saturdays should have been treated as rostered days off attracting double time penalty rates. However, under a 2012 memorandum of understanding, Saturday work in Burnie had been arranged on a voluntary basis with a sign-up sheet, paid at time and a half. He claimed the time and a half rate was incorrect.
Robinson v BMF Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2)
Jeffrey Robinson worked as General Manager of BMF Construction from March 2017 until May or November 2020. Robinson claimed his employer was BMF Pty Ltd, while the respondent Ian Wright contended the actual employer was Brandmet Pty Ltd. Robinson brought claims under the Fair Work Act, Competition and Consumer Act, and in contract and equity. BMF was placed in liquidation, complicating the proceedings.
the Applicant v the Respondent
The Applicant and a co-worker led representative proceedings on behalf of groups of workers employed by Romeo Lockleys (Lockleys Foodland). The workers alleged they did not receive their full entitlements under the General Retail Industry Award 2010 for hours worked. The proceedings involved claims for underpayment of wages, and a settlement was negotiated between the parties.
Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia v the Respondent (No 2)
Airservices Australia changed its “ATC Career Model” policy in March 2015 without consulting employees or their union, the Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia. This breached an enterprise agreement and section 50 of the Fair Work Act. A previous court decision confirmed this breach. The current case concerns what remedies should be imposed for this breach.
the Applicant v Southcott Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed as a storeman by Southcott Pty Ltd from 16 November 2020. On 1 February 2021, the Respondent introduced a face mask mandate. When the Applicant declined to wear a mask, claiming a medical condition would be exacerbated, he was stood down. The Respondent demanded disclosure of medical details; the Applicant refused and was stood down. On 8 February 2021, the Applicant was dismissed for refusing to wear a mask, refusing medical disclosure, and refusing to provide sources for privacy claims. the Applicant sought leave to amend his originating application to add disability discrimination claims.
the Applicant v ACT Education Directorate
the Applicant, a teacher at the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Education Directorate since 1991, was dismissed in 2016. She initiated legal proceedings against the directorate in November 2016, claiming breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The case experienced significant delays and procedural issues including the Applicant’s ill health and a dispute over whether the hearing should proceed based on documents or with oral evidence.
the Applicant v Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd
the Applicant and Syed Haider were employed as cooks at two Indian restaurants (Wollongong and Nowra) operated by Namitha Nakul Pty Ltd and managed by director Vaisakh Mohanan Usha. the Applicants worked long hours without formal breaks and were underpaid. They were required to repay portions of their wages as 'cashback payments' allegedly for loans, visa sponsorship, and tax obligations. Poor employment records made factual findings difficult. The court relied on objective facts including payslips, evidence of duties, and working patterns.
Tucker v McKee
Tobias Tucker was employed at the State Revenue Office of Victoria. A female colleague complained of sexual harassment by Tucker, including inappropriate comments and unwanted Facebook friend requests. An investigation also found he had conducted unauthorised searches of customer records related to people connected to the complainant. The employer sent a show cause letter referring to a clause in the Victorian Public Service Enterprise Agreement 2016 requiring investigation into alleged misconduct.
Security & Technology Services (NT) Pty Ltd v the Respondent
Security & Technology Services (NT) was found liable by a Federal Circuit judge for contravening s.44 of the Fair Work Act by failing to give notice of termination to an employee, the Applicant. The primary judge ordered the company to pay compensation of $308,401.83 with interest, and a pecuniary penalty of $50,000. The judge also ordered costs on an indemnity basis from 6 April 2021. The company appealed on multiple grounds.
Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (on behalf of the Commonwealth) v Police Federation of Australia (Australian Federal Police Association Branch)
Six AFP employees and the Police Federation of Australia claimed the AFP Commissioner failed to pay them correctly under the Australian Federal Police Enterprise Agreement 2017–2020. The dispute centred on the meaning of section 63 of the agreement, which relates to performance development agreements (PDAs) and their impact on salary increases. The primary judge answered a single question about this section in favour of the Applicant. The AFP Commissioner appealed that decision.
United Firefighters' Union of Australia v United Firefighters' Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland (No 2)
The Applicant applied under section 167 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 for declarations that four firefighters had been continuous members of the UFUA. The firefighters were Paul Hagger, Lam Pham, Daniel Feeney, and Scott Neumann. The State-based United Firefighters' Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland (UFUQ) contested the application or the dates of membership. All four had completed double-sided membership forms that purported to enrol them in both the federal and state unions, but documentation had been affected by workplace flooding in 2011.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rio Tinto Limited (No 2)
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) brought proceedings against Rio Tinto Limited, the Respondent, and Guy Elliott. The case concerned whether Rio Tinto breached its continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act. Rio Tinto admitted to one contravention: failing to notify the ASX about information concerning their coal projects in Mozambique between December 2012 and January 2013. This 'Orebody Information' revealed a reduction in expected recoverable coal volumes and diminished confidence in economic extraction, impacting the viability of the projects. The company had previously made public statements portraying these projects as highly prospective and world-class.
the Applicant v St Ives Group Pty Ltd
the Applicant seeking leave to pursue discrimination claims filed affidavits containing expert reports. the Respondent requested production of an earlier expert report. the Applicant resisted disclosure, claiming legal privilege and relevance. the Respondent filed interlocutory applications to compel production. On each occasion, the Applicant capitulated just before the hearing date.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Mechanical Maintenance Solutions Pty Ltd
Mechanical Maintenance Solutions applied to the Fair Work Commission to approve the MMS Latrobe Valley Enterprise Agreement 2018, which would replace two existing greenfields agreements. Five employees were covered. the Respondent's consultant explained the agreement to employees verbally but not in writing and did not directly explain all material differences between the new agreement and the existing agreements. The Commission approved the agreement. Three unions applied for judicial review, arguing the Commission erred in finding that 'all reasonable steps' had been taken to explain the agreement as required by s 180(5) of the Fair Work Act.
the Applicant v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (No 3)
the Applicant worked for Hawkesbury Race Club for 26 years, beginning as a contractor in 1991 and becoming an employee in 2013. She was paid commission on sponsorships she arranged. In May 2016, the Respondent became CEO and began bullying and micromanaging her. She complained to the Respondent about his conduct and its effects on her health, and raised concerns with board directors. The Respondent responded by requiring her to attend a performance meeting and withheld her commission payments. She eventually accepted the club's repudiation of her employment in March 2017 after suffering significant depressive disorder and anxiety.
DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited v United Workers' Union (No 2)
DHL Supply Chain engaged in industrial relations discussions with employees via a union-designed form. The United Workers' Union distributed these forms to collect employee information about DHL's business operations. DHL obtained interlocutory orders requiring the union to deliver up and destroy all completed forms and materials derived from them by specific deadlines. the Respondents took steps to comply but technical non-compliance occurred: some materials were delivered 12 minutes late, and some derivative materials were not fully identified for destruction within the prescribed timeframe.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Monash Freeway Widening Case) (No 2)
James Simpson, acting as a representative of the CFMMEU, exercised right of entry at construction sites on the Monash Freeway Widening project in April 2017. On the evening and early morning of 29-30 April 2017 at the Eumemmering Creek Site, Simpson failed to comply with reasonable occupational health and safety requirements, remaining on site despite warnings and refusing multiple requests to leave. On 9 May 2017 at Gate 3 Site, Simpson physically pushed a site manager (Inkster) while exercising or attempting to exercise a right of entry. The union was involved in his conduct.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd
CPB Contractors Pty Ltd is the principal contractor on the Cross River Rail Project (a $5 billion infrastructure project in Brisbane with tunnel works). The CFMMEU (Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union) sought to gain access to tunnelling worksites to meet with employees, claiming coverage of tunnelling workers. CPB disputed CFMMEU's right of entry, arguing the Australian Workers' Union has exclusive coverage of tunnelling work and that the tunnel and surface work sites are separate workplaces with different access requirements under work health and safety laws.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Australian Workers' Union
the Applicant, an officer of the Australian Workers' Union, organized workers at a OneSteel reinforcing manufacturing site to attend a 'Change the Rules' rally on 23 October 2018. Management then interviewed employees about their rally attendance. On 31 October 2018, the Applicant arranged for day-shift workers to leave work, citing employee distress about interviews. That day, the Applicant requested OneSteel pay workers in full despite the work stoppage. Industrial action continued on 1 November until a Fair Work Commission order required workers to return.
the Applicant, in the matter of an election for offices of the Manufacturing Division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)
An inquiry was ordered into alleged irregularities in election number E2020/114 for the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (Manufacturing Division). The alleged irregularities included that 83 members were incorrectly excluded from voting and some candidates were incorrectly prevented from standing. The inquiry related to the election of several divisional offices including Divisional Secretary. Arturo Menon was a candidate for Divisional Secretary who lost substantially to Michael O'Connor (542 votes to 1890 votes).
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining & Energy Union v Boggabri Coal Operations Pty Ltd
the Applicant, an employee at Boggabri Coal Operations, was authorized to take protected industrial action on specified dates (30 September, 2 October, and 3 October 2019) for two-hour periods commencing at notified times. Before each notified commencement time, the Applicant parked his dozer, logged out systems, turned off the equipment, and walked to be transported to administration. These preparatory steps (taking 5-9 minutes before each protected action) secured and made safe the dozer as required by normal work procedures. The respondent deducted four hours' pay for each date, claiming the Applicant engaged in unprotected industrial action before the protected action commenced.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Parker
Steven Parker, an elected delegate of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, held safety concerns about a worksite at the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project on 11 July 2019. He believed the first aid room bed was too high, there was no ramp access, and lighting was inadequate. Parker directed approximately two groups of workers not to commence work, claiming inadequate first aid facilities and lighting. Workers remained in crib sheds for several hours before resuming work. Both Parker and the union admitted the conduct constituted unlawful industrial action under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016.
Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd
Yan Flageul was Chief Executive Officer of WeDrive Pty Ltd and was terminated on 21 December 2017 by non-executive director Steven Mace. Flageul alleged the company took adverse action against him because he exercised workplace rights, citing eleven events he claimed constituted complaints or inquiries relating to his employment. These included concerns about non-disclosure of material issues to the company regarding a transaction.
Qube Logistics (Rail) Pty Ltd v Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
Qube acquired operations that were subject to the Independent Railways of Australia Enterprise Agreement 2011, which covered approximately 32 employees. The agreement had a nominal expiry date of 1 April 2014. Clause 5 stated that in the absence of re-negotiation, the last increase detailed in the remuneration clause would be the agreed increase for each anniversary thereafter. Qube refused to pay the annual 3% wage increases for the years ending April 2014 and April 2015, contending that negotiations had commenced so the 're-negotiation' condition was not met.
Enkel v We R Finance Pty Ltd (No 2)
Alastair Enkel brought a cross-appeal against We R Finance Pty Ltd (WRF) and director Harry Charles Ross after the Western Australian Industrial Magistrates Court initially dismissed his claim against Ross. The matter concerned underpayment of award rates. WRF had also brought an initial appeal which it discontinued before hearing. On cross-appeal, Enkel sought to overturn the dismissal against Ross and to increase penalties.
Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union v Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd
Metro Trains Melbourne proposed a restructure of station grade roles affecting station masters and passenger service leaders employed in its suburban railway system. The proposed changes would reduce station master positions overall, adjust numbers at specific stations, and eliminate the passenger service leader classification. In April 2021, the company communicated the changes via PowerPoint presentations and meetings, seeking voluntary redundancy expressions and proposing a redeployment process with an effective date of 24 May 2021. The Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union representing affected employees disputed whether the restructure complied with the enterprise agreement.
the Applicant v Sydney Trains
the Applicant was employed as a Transport Officer by Sydney Trains from 28 August 2013 until 14 August 2017. He was a member and officer of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union (RTBU). Between mid-2016 and July 2017, the Applicant engaged in numerous disputes with management including attempts to procure a vote of no confidence in a manager, pursuing disputes through the enterprise agreement dispute resolution procedure, initiating stop bullying proceedings, and making various complaints and inquiries. On 24 July 2017 he was sent a show cause letter. On 14 August 2017 he was dismissed.
Eguia v CPB Contractors Pty Ltd
Maritess Eguia was employed by CPB Contractors Pty Ltd as an ICT Projects Manager on the West Gate Tunnel Project from 8 April 2019 to 25 September 2019. Her employment was terminated during this period. She sought to bring a general protections application under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act alleging adverse action. The Fair Work Commission issued a certificate under section 368(3)(a) on 19 June 2020. Eguia filed her application in court on 23 July 2020, which was 20 days after the 14-day deadline specified in section 370(a)(ii).
Bailey v DPR Haulage Pty Ltd
Paul Bailey, a former delivery driver, commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against DPR Haulage Pty Ltd alleging wrongful termination of his employment under section 340(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act. He sought $85,134 for lost salary and $25,000 for reputational damage. The applicant is self-represented. The court considered whether to transfer the case to the Federal Circuit Court.
Fair Work Ombudsman v IE Enterprises Pty Ltd
IE Enterprises (trading as Uncle Toys) employed eight casual employees at pop-up toy kiosks in Victorian shopping centres from October 2017 to January 2018 during the Christmas season. The company failed to pay minimum rates, superannuation contributions, and failed to keep proper employment records and provide compliant payslips. Employees were underpaid a total of $21,749.19. The sole director, Eyal Israel, was responsible for the company's overall direction and control.
Pal v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2)
Sarabjeet Singh Pal brought an originating application seeking judicial review of matters arising under the Fair Work Act. The application was summarily dismissed under s 31A of the Federal Court Act as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Registered Organisations Commissioner
The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union (CEPU) failed to maintain proper records and notify the Fair Work Commission of changes to union offices and office-holders as required by law. Specific contraventions included failure to include a Divisional Trustee position in office lists for 2015 and 2016, and failure to notify 82 changes to office-holder positions within the required 35-day periods. The union's dysfunctional governance structure, with divisions operating autonomously, contributed to the non-compliance.
Cummins South Pacific Pty Ltd v Keenan
Andrew Keenan worked for Cummins South Pacific for approximately 34 years as an engineer and later senior manager. He made five complaints between July 2014 and October 2015: about colleague Sharmili Baldota's conduct; about the fairness of a Performance Improvement Plan; that he was extremely stressed; and an ethics case against colleagues. Following these complaints, Keenan experienced adverse actions including dismissal in October 2015. He also claimed underpayment of long service leave upon termination because service with a related entity overseas was not counted.
Thiess Pty Ltd v the Respondent
the Applicant and 150 other employees worked for Thiess Pty Ltd at the Wheatstone Project near Onslow, Western Australia, a major LNG construction site. Workers were employed on a fly-in/fly-out basis and accommodated at a distance from the worksite. They were bussed from accommodation to a security gate, then to the crib hut and work areas on the 10-square-kilometre site. A dispute arose over when their paid working hours ended each day: whether at the crib hut on site or at the security gate when exiting the site (a difference of approximately 20 minutes per day for the Applicant).
O'Connor v Setka
Michael O'Connor, National Secretary of the CFMMEU, sought court orders to enforce union rules requiring that persons in certain occupations in Victoria remain allocated to the Manufacturing Division. John Setka and other Construction and General Division branch officials encouraged over 200 manufacturing division members in occupations including floor laying and cabinet making to resign and join the Construction and General Division, contrary to the union's membership allocation rules.
the Applicant v Sydney Trains
the Applicant was employed by Sydney Trains as a Team Leader for about 34 years. In August 2015, his work team was involved in two safety incidents on railway lines: at Allawah, where a warning light was missed and a team member had to jump to avoid an approaching train, and at Kogarah, where a team member narrowly avoided an approaching train. An external investigator found the Applicant at fault for failing to follow safety procedures. Sydney Trains dismissed the Applicant in November 2016.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Melbourne Precast Concrete Nominees Pty Ltd (No 2)
the Applicant worked as a precast concrete operator for Melbourne Precast Concrete Nominees Pty Ltd under an enterprise agreement. In March 2020, he was dismissed allegedly for redundancy following restructuring. the Applicant claimed the dismissal was not genuine redundancy and was actually adverse action taken because he raised occupational health and safety concerns and exercised his right to take personal leave when unfit for work.
McKerlie v RateIt Australia Pty Ltd
Colin Robert McKerlie filed an unfair dismissal claim against RateIt Australia Pty Ltd with the Fair Work Commission (matter U2020/1211). The matter was allocated to Deputy President Gerard Boyce. McKerlie filed an appeal (matter C2020/4086) of interlocutory decisions by the Deputy President, including decisions permitting RateIt to be represented by its solicitors MKI Legal. McKerlie filed an originating application in the Federal Court seeking interlocutory injunctions to restrain the FWC from proceeding, seeking an order that MKI Legal be restrained from acting, seeking a declaration that Deputy President Boyce was unfit for office, and seeking a suppression order for non-publication.
Dental Corporation Pty Ltd v the Respondent
the Applicant, a dentist, sold his dental practice to Dental Corporation Pty Ltd on 15 November 2007 but continued to provide dentistry services at the practice. The parties entered into a Services Agreement governing his work. Under the agreement, the Applicant was required to provide dentistry services, maintain professional standards, develop professionally, and obtain professional indemnity insurance. He received remuneration calculated as a percentage of revenue he personally generated plus performance bonuses. Dental Corporation provided administrative services, equipment, and paid for supporting staff.
Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd v the Respondent
The Spotless group companies (Berkeley Challenge and Spotless Services Australia) terminated several long-serving employees after losing contracts to supply services to their customers. The terminated employees had worked for the companies for many years in secure, ongoing roles. The companies argued their terminations fell within the 'ordinary and customary turnover of labour' exception to redundancy pay obligations under s 119(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v CoreStaff WA Pty Ltd
Peter Selsmark, a 70-year-old with experience as a grader operator, applied through recruitment company CoreStaff for a position with Gumala Enterprises in the Pilbara. CoreStaff received the application but refused to proceed with Selsmark's employment. The client, Gumala, had expressed concern about his age. CoreStaff alleged the refusal was based on operational concerns, but the evidence showed age was a substantial factor.
the Applicant v Ferrari Australasia Pty Limited
the Applicant was employed by Ferrari entities and commenced an originating application on 15 May 2020 alleging dismissal in contravention of general protections provisions. The statement of claim included allegations about personal matters and conduct said to justify dismissal, and information about his remuneration. On 27 May 2020, before the application was served on Ferrari, the Applicant discontinued the proceeding. Media representatives later sought access to the court documents.
the Applicant v the Respondent
the Applicant and officials of the union's branches disputed who should pay redundancy entitlements owed to a former employee of the Victorian Telecommunications and Services Branch. The Branch lacked funds, sought National Council approval to access restricted funds, was denied, then argued the Division should pay. The proceeding concerns the interpretation and enforcement of union rules governing financial responsibility between organisational levels.
Shahin Enterprises Pty Ltd v the Respondent
the Applicant worked for Shahin Enterprises (On The Run petrol station and convenience stores) in Adelaide from November 2015 to December 2016 as a permanent part-time console operator working 25 hours per week. He typically worked midnight to 7 am shifts, alone for much of the shift. Shahin required employees to arrive 10-15 minutes early for handover duties but did not pay for this time. the Applicant was directed to take 30-minute unpaid meal breaks while standing at the counter ready to serve customers.
the Applicant v State of Victoria (Victoria Police)
the Applicant commenced proceedings against Victoria Police (Victoria Police) alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The allegations relate to an altercation in February 2018 and a subsequent complaint made by her partner to Victoria Police. the Applicant claimed Victoria Police failed to adequately investigate the complaint and discriminated against him due to his disability. Victoria Police sought to have parts of the Applicant’s amended points of claim struck out, arguing they didn’t establish a reasonable cause of action.
Heiko Constructions T/A Heiko Constructions Pty Ltd v the Respondent
the Applicant was an experienced formwork patcher employed by Heiko Constructions, a labour hire company. While working at the Multiplex Jewel worksite, the Applicant witnessed a serious workplace accident. He believed the accident resulted from unsafe working conditions and reported it to both WorkSafe and the CFMEU union. Believing no action was taken on his complaints, the Applicant resigned from CFMEU membership. Shortly after, the foreman terminated the Applicant's employment. The Applicant alleged this was adverse action in retaliation for his complaints about safety.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (The BKH Contractors Appeal)
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union pursued industrial action at construction sites operated by BKH Contractors in Rhodes and Wolli Creek, Sydney. The union sought an enterprise agreement with a site allowance. At issue were threats made to contractors, blockades of sites on consecutive days in March 2015, and industrial action taken to force the contractor to sign the proposed agreement.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Australian Workers' Union
In March 2015, the Australian Workers' Union gave notice of protected industrial action at an Orica manufacturing plant in Deer Park, Victoria, where employees worked under an enterprise agreement. Two employees chose not to participate in the union's industrial action. In response, a AWU organiser petitioned to bring charges against these employees under the union's rules for 'gross misbehaviour' and 'failing to comply with a resolution or direction'. The AWU charged the employees on 16 March 2015. Between 29 April and 2 September 2015, the charges remained undetermined, effectively threatening the employees with potential fines, suspension, or expulsion. On 2 September 2015, the charges were withdrawn.
the Applicant v the Respondent
the Applicant commenced employment as a medical receptionist/personal assistant with the Respondent on 19 September 2016. The Respondent terminated her employment on 15 October 2018. the Applicant alleged breach of s 340(1)(a) (adverse action) citing her exercise of workplace rights including the right to make complaints and to take personal leave.
the Applicant v Australian Postal Corporation (No 2)
the Applicant worked for Australian Postal Corporation (APC). He alleged that APC and its former Managing Director took adverse action against him, including his removal from a position and cancellation of a project, due to his workplace rights. He also claimed the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) made threats intended to coerce APC. He further alleged breaches of his employment contract. The case involved discussions about what constitutes a 'threat' under Fair Work Act sections 348 and 355, the meaning of 'intent to coerce', and whether union representative actions influenced APC’s decisions.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union V BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd (No 2)
Kim Star was employed by WorkPac and deployed to work at BM Alliance's Goonyella Riverside Mine from 2013 to November 2017. On 10 November 2017, BMA advised WorkPac that Star was no longer required. Star's employment was terminated on 13 November 2017 and she filed an unfair dismissal application. The Fair Work Commission found her dismissal unfair and ordered reinstatement. When WorkPac sought BMA's approval to reinstate Star, BMA refused on 24 September 2018. The CFMMEU then sued BMA for adverse action under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act.
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia v Bulga Underground Operations Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed as a salaried staff employee by coal miner Bulga Underground Operations from 2003, covered by an enterprise agreement. When Bulga made the Applicant redundant, it calculated his untaken long service leave entitlements but failed to pay the correct amount. The Respondent miscalculated his 'base rate of pay' under both the Fair Work Act and the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act, resulting in underpayment of his long service leave benefit upon termination due to redundancy.
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd initiated legal action against the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) and the Respondent. The dispute arose from a work stoppage at Port Botany in April 2018, where Patrick Stevedores employees refused to operate cranes due to the absence of usual maintenance workers provided by Kalmar, a contractor. Kalmar's employees were engaged in enterprise bargaining with the CFMMEU. Initially, Patrick Stevedores alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act related to industrial action and adverse actions. However, before the full hearing, the respondents admitted to contravening section 417 of the Fair Work Act.
Australian Education Union v the Respondent
the Applicant worked for Yooralla, a disability services provider, at the Naroo Day Service in Victoria from December 2013 to 2017. She held degrees in Applied Science and Occupational Therapy. She was classified in her contract as an 'attendant carer' but her actual work involved developing individualised training plans, conducting lifestyle programs, supporting skill development and maintaining detailed client progress records. She spent only a small portion of time on personal care activities like assisting with meals.
Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group Aboriginal Corporation v Naylor
Stewart and Anna Naylor were CEO and Services Manager of Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group Aboriginal Corporation for over seven years. Stewart Naylor claimed and was paid approximately $474,287 in overtime payments for hours either not performed or unauthorized. Anna Naylor was paid approximately $153,887 in overtime. Stewart Naylor also authorized expenditure on personal items (iPads, iPhones, luxury clothing) totaling tens of thousands. These actions paralleled criminal fraud proceedings alleging deception and theft by deception.
Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) v O-I Operations (Australia) Pty Ltd
AMWU and CEPU unions organized protected industrial action (bans on maintenance work) at an O-I glass manufacturing plant in Spotswood, Victoria, during enterprise agreement negotiations. The employer responded by deploying management and salaried staff to perform maintenance work normally done by covered employees. The enterprise agreement's clause 17 provided that staff should only use tools in emergencies, safety situations, training, or diagnosis—not regular work. The action reduced the impact of protected industrial action.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Milin Builders Pty Ltd
Milin Builders operated a multi-storey apartment construction site in Canberra in February 2016. The site contained a high-risk fenced zone accessible only by swipe card and an induction shed outside the fenced area. Union officials Kenneth Miller and Cameron Hardy, holding valid entry permits, gave notice of their intention to hold discussions with employees on 4 February 2016. They were told they could only hold discussions in the induction shed, not in the amenities sheds within the high-risk zone, and refused entry to the fenced area.
Australian Building & Construction Commissioner v the Respondent (No 2)
On 5 August 2016, following a fatality at another Multiplex construction site, a meeting was held at the Optus Stadium project in Perth with approximately 500 workers. the Applicant, an organiser for the CFMMEU, allegedly said words to the effect that workers should show respect for the fallen colleague by walking off the job. Around 30-50% of workers left the site. Civmec's project manager then met with remaining employees to instruct them to stay on site. the Applicant allegedly approached the project manager and said: if workers returned to site, there would be a picket line on Monday. The parties disputed the exact words used and context of the conversation.
CPSU, the Community and Public Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia
Members of the CPSU took protected industrial action in the form of work bans (partial work bans) and work stoppages between June 2015 and March 2016 while employed by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The employees received a 'Sea-going Commuted Allowance' of 60-63% of annual salary in recognition of special maritime duties. The employer reduced or withheld these allowances during periods of protected industrial action.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Powell (No 2)
Michael Powell, an organiser for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, attended a construction site at Ringwood, Victoria on four separate occasions between May and October 2014 to assist the workplace health and safety representative. Each time, the site occupier (Kane Constructions) refused him entry and asked him to leave. Powell attended in response to requests from the duly elected health and safety representative seeking assistance under occupational health and safety legislation, not under Fair Work Act permit authority.
the Applicant v Telstra Corporation Limited
the Applicant was employed by Telstra. In August 2017 he was made redundant as part of an internal reorganisation. the Applicant alleged the redundancy was not genuine and was adverse action taken because he complained about his managers. He claimed the same work was still being performed by other employees post-restructure, suggesting his position was not truly redundant but he was targeted for exercising workplace rights.
the Applicant v Woodside Energy Limited (No 7)
the Applicant was employed by Woodside Energy as Technical Authority for structures and lifting on the North Rankin Alpha gas platform. After raising safety concerns about increasing pile loads in 2008 and 2009, he alleged that management subjected him to stress, hostile work environment, performance rating downgrades, removal of duties, exclusion from meetings, denied training, false performance assessments, and ultimately dismissal. He sought damages exceeding $10 million for disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and other claims.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v J Hutchinson Pty Ltd T/A Hutchinson Builders
On 9 December 2013, during an unprotected industrial action, 10 employees of Hutchinson Builders ceased work. The company failed to deduct four hours' pay from each employee as required by s 474 of the Fair Work Act. Instead, the company paid full wages in the pay period following the action. Deductions were made months later.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
The CFMEU (renamed CFMMEU) officers Maurice Campanaro and Joe Caratozzolo separately met with John Patsalas, an independent contractor working on construction sites. On 25 November 2016 at the Trillium Apartments project in Melbourne, Campanaro told Patsalas he had to pay fees to the union to work on site. After Patsalas paid, he was permitted to work. On 15 February 2017 at the EQ Tower Apartments project, Caratozzolo similarly told Patsalas he needed to pay outstanding union fees before being permitted to work.
Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union
A union organized industrial action at Port Botany stevedoring terminals in April-May 2017, including work bans in the rail yard and a general stoppage of work across three shifts. The action involved approximately 90% unionised employees at two related companies. The parties disagreed on whether the action was protected and whether it related to a genuine dispute about alleged contract breaches. The union maintained there was insufficient investigation before the industrial action.
the Applicant v Western Union Business Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2)
the Applicant was employed by Western Union Business Solutions (Australia) Pty Ltd. the Applicant was dismissed and claimed Western Union took adverse action against him because of his mental disability (s 351 of the Fair Work Act). the Applicant contended the dismissal was motivated by discriminatory reasons relating to his inability to return to work, which manifested his disability.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Transpetrol TM AS
Transpetrol, a Norwegian shipping company, employed crew members on the oil tanker MT Turmoil during voyages in Australian coastal waters between 2013 and 2015. The vessel operated under temporary licences issued under the Coastal Trading Act, which extended Fair Work Act coverage to the crew. The crew were underpaid under the Seagoing Industry Award and National Minimum Wage Order.
Swissport Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union (No 3)
Aerocare Flight Support engaged part-time ground staff (Permanent Secure Employees) at 24 Australian airports who worked split-shifts—two separate paid periods on the same day separated by unpaid time. The unions (AMACSU and TWU) argued the Airline Operations Ground Staff Award 2010 prohibited split-shift work. Aerocare sought court declarations that split-shifts were permitted and that employees were not entitled to overtime rates or recall penalties for the second shift period.
Electoral Commissioner, in the matter of an Inquiry Relating to Election for an Office in the Australian Education Union (SA Branch)
The Electoral Commissioner conducted an election for a casual vacancy for the position of Branch Executive Officer (Female) in the South Australian Branch of the Australian Education Union. Two candidates nominated: the Applicant and the Second Respondent. The returning officer issued ballot papers to 12,956 members without excluding 318 ineligible voters (278 from CS/SSO sub-divisions and 40 from TAFE Division). These 318 ineligible votes comprised approximately 34% of all votes cast. the Applicant was declared elected with 477 votes versus 365 votes for the Second Respondent.
Registered Organisations Commissioner v Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (No 2)
The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation's Western Australian Branch failed to prepare and provide financial reports to members for the financial years ending 30 June 2010, 2011, and 2012, as required by the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth). The Applicant was the Branch Secretary during this period. The branch failed to prepare general purpose financial reports, provide copies of complying reports to members, and present full reports to meetings.
the Applicant v Telstra Corporation Limited
The Applicant was employed by Telstra Corporation as an Applications Manager in the Operations Support Services Team from August 2008. He worked under a General Manager. In December 2014, the Applicant raised concerns with the General Manager about an issue. In July 2016, he made a formal complaint against the General Manager alleging bullying, isolation, and discrimination. He also requested flexible working arrangements to attend to his daughter's medical needs and his own mental health. In June 2017, Telstra initiated a company-wide restructure called 'Project Rosie' aimed at reducing costs. The Applicant was selected for redundancy and received a low performance rating in July 2017. He alleges the General Manager arranged his dismissal as revenge.
the Applicant v Australian Postal Corporation
the Applicant was employed by Australia Post as National Compensation Manager working on 'Project Dove', a project designed to change how Australia Post handled employees receiving workers' compensation. A union official made a telephone call to Australia Post CEO on 5 February 2016 threatening to leak confidential documents about Project Dove to media and politicians, arrange protest rallies, pursue industrial action, and take legal action unless the Applicant was removed from his position and the project was cancelled.
Conway v Fernandez
Paul Conway is Federal President of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. In November 2018, Patricia Fernandez (NSW Branch Secretary) filed charges against Conway under union rule 35 alleging he used abusive language at a Federal Council dinner (13 September 2018) and at a Federal Executive Meeting (8 March 2018). The Union's Federal Council scheduled a special meeting for 4-5 December 2018 to hear and determine the charges, which could result in Conway's expulsion from membership.
Altintas v O'Dea Lawyers
In 2015, Sera Altintas filed an application in the South Australian Industrial Relations Court seeking payment of amounts allegedly owed to her under the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010 for work performed in March and April 2015. The total claimed was $3,189.30 plus pecuniary penalty. An Industrial Magistrate largely dismissed her application, conceding only four hours of unpaid work on 13 April 2015. Altintas then appealed to the South Australian Employment Tribunal.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v De Martin & Gasparini Pty Limited (No 3)
De Martin & Gasparini employed about 110 construction workers, many of whom were CFMEU members. The company entered an Enterprise Agreement with the CFMEU in March 2015 lasting until March 2018. In June 2017, a new code (Code for Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016) required changes to the agreement or the company would be ineligible for Commonwealth-funded work. Management proposed varying the agreement but workers voted against the proposal on 28 June 2017, partly influenced by the CFMEU's opposition. On 3 July 2017, two senior officers met with workers and threatened dismissal, threatened to alter their positions to their prejudice, and said they would be injured in their employment if they did not approve the variation.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v the Respondent
A Fair Work inspector issued a notice to the Maritime Union of Australia under s 712 of the Fair Work Act requiring production of various documents concerning work stoppages at the Port of Melbourne on 8 December 2017. The documents sought included correspondence, meeting records, emails, and communications between the union and various parties about the stoppages.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (The Parliament Square Case) (No 2)
Richard Hassett, an elected delegate of the CFMEU, exercised rights of entry under the Fair Work Act at the Parliament Square construction project in Hobart on three separate occasions in 2015. On 28 July 2015, he entered without giving the required notice, held discussions with workers outside meal breaks, and used foul language. On 21 October 2015, he again entered without notice, held discussions outside break times, and ignored instructions to leave. On 5 November 2015, he entered without notice twice, failed to produce his entry notice when requested, refused to leave when asked, used offensive language, and directed abuse at site management.
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd
The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) appealed a decision regarding when union representatives could enter a BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd workplace to discuss matters with employees. Section 490(2) of the Fair Work Act allows entry during “mealtimes or other breaks”. The CFMMEU argued this included times before an employee’s shift, while BHP contended discussions were limited to work hours.
the Applicant v Conair Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
The Applicant sought judicial review of a Fair Work Commission decision refusing her permission to appeal and dismissing her appeal. The Respondent applied for an order that the Applicant pay its costs on an indemnity basis, arguing the proceedings were instituted without reasonable cause. The court previously granted a summary dismissal of the Applicant’s claim. She did not file submissions or evidence in response to the costs application.
the Applicant v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd
Griffin Coal Mining employed maintenance workers rostered to work 14 shifts of 10 hours each over a 3-week cycle, totalling 140 hours comprising 105 ordinary hours and 35 hours of overtime. The roster pattern was seven shifts followed by four days off, then seven shifts followed by three days off, with work spread across weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays. the Applicant sought a declaration about how ordinary hours and overtime must be allocated across these shifts under the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Adams
This is the penalty phase following the 2015 decision finding 74 building workers contravened section 417(1) of the Fair Work Act by engaging in unlawful industrial action on 28 February 2013 at a construction site. The workers had breached a Fair Work Commission order that prohibited industrial action. The Court considered factors including the seriousness of the conduct, absence of prior contraventions, whether conduct was deliberate, and industrial context.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Telstra Corporation Limited
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) sued Telstra Corporation Limited over its Premium Direct Billing Service (PDB service). This service allowed customers to purchase digital content from third-party providers, with charges billed directly to their Telstra accounts. Many customers unknowingly incurred these charges without consent. Telstra did not require customer verification for purchases. The ACCC alleged that Telstra made false or misleading representations about the PDB service, violating consumer protection laws.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No 2)
Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd operated a coal mine with 20 employees covered by an enterprise agreement (Hail Creek Agreement 2011). Between October 2015 and December 2017, the employer reduced shift lengths from 12.5 hours to 12 hours and substantially reduced the Roster Allowance paid to these employees. The employer took the view that when shift lengths reduced, it could proportionally reduce the Roster Allowance. This misconstruction meant the employees were paid less than the full total salary required under the agreement each month. The employer made 506 separate underpayment breaches during this period.
All Trades Queensland Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)
All Trades Queensland Pty Limited, Queensland Master Builders Association, and Housing Industry Association filed an application seeking to quash decisions of the Fair Work Commission. The Commission had determined whether the All Trades Queensland Pty Ltd Apprentice/Trainee Enterprise Agreement 2015 passed the 'better off overall test' under section 193 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application required interpretation of provisions of the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 and related regulations.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Sureguard Security Pty Ltd
Sureguard Security Pty Ltd engaged security workers (casual and permanent) under the Security Services Industry Award 2010. The Fair Work Ombudsman investigated and found extensive contraventions: the company failed to pay minimum hourly rates, failed to pay casual loading to casual employees, failed to pay required night and weekend penalty rates, failed to pay overtime rates, failed to pay public holiday span penalties, and failed to pay broken shift allowances. These failures affected 21 named employees over the relevant period.
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Molina
The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner filed proceedings against Walter Molina and the CFMEU regarding alleged conduct at the Perth Stadium Project on 5 August 2016. The allegations involve a worker fatality at another site, a meeting of approximately 500-550 workers at the Perth site, and claims that Molina made statements encouraging workers to walk off and later threatened a picket line if the contractor did not send employees home.
All Trades Queensland Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
All Trades Queensland and industry associations sought approval of a 2015 enterprise agreement covering apprentices and trainees in building, construction, engineering and automotive industries in Queensland. The company hires apprentices and trainees to other businesses. A dispute arose over which industrial instruments should be used to assess whether the agreement passed the 'better off overall test'—the company argued obsolete Queensland state awards should apply, while unions argued modern national awards should apply.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Thiess Pty Ltd
Thiess Pty Ltd sought approval of an enterprise agreement covering three employees transferred to work on pre-mobilisation activities for the Mount Pleasant Mine Project in late October 2016. The employees were transferred from the Brisbane-based Thiess Component Rebuild Centre and performed maintenance and inspection work to prepare equipment for the project. The agreement was made and voted on 29 November 2016. At the time of voting and approval application, Thiess had not been awarded the contract for the Mt Pleasant Mine Project; that occurred on 13 April 2017.
Rahman v Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Taxation Office
Fahmid Rahman sought judicial review of a decision by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission refusing him permission to appeal from a Deputy President's decision dismissing his unfair dismissal application. The Deputy President had found that Rahman created or assisted in creating a false job application and dismissed him on grounds related to this misconduct. Rahman raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Deputy President erred in finding he created a false application based on an erroneously sworn affidavit; and second, that the Deputy President failed to consider whether the ATO's delay in dealing with the misconduct over several years amounted to condonation.
Leahey v CSG Business Solutions (Aus) Pty Ltd
Forrester Patrick Leahey was employed by CSG Business Solutions as Regional General Manager NSW & ACT from 26 June 2013. His employment agreement provided for variable remuneration (Short Term Incentive or STI) based on key performance indicators. His employment was terminated on 23 August 2016 following performance issues and an incident on 7 July 2016 where Leahey allegedly used inappropriate physical force against a sub-agent. Leahey claimed termination was adverse action for exercising workplace rights (redundancy entitlements and complaints about STI calculation).
Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
On 13 June 2014, Alex Tadic, an organiser employed by the CFMEU with entry permits to conduct safety inspections, accompanied WorkSafe inspector Jason Sharples on a safety walk at a construction site in Castlemaine, Victoria. During the walk, Tadic allegedly refused to limit his questions and comments, made derogatory remarks about the inspector, repeatedly demanded the site be closed, was rude and aggressive, threatened to call the inspector's supervisor, and declared the matter was not over.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Glendell Mining Pty Limited
the Applicant worked as an employee of Glendell Mining Pty Limited. His employment was governed by an enterprise agreement that provided him with five weeks (later six weeks) of paid annual leave per year, exceeding the National Employment Standards minimum of four weeks. Between January 2010 and January 2014, the Applicant took paid annual leave on six occasions when public holidays fell during those leave periods. On each such occasion, Glendell deducted one day from the Applicant's accrued annual leave entitlement for the public holiday. On another occasion, the Applicant took personal/carer's leave on a public holiday, and Glendell treated him as being on paid annual leave and deducted a day from his annual leave entitlement.
Bashour v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited
Katherine Bashour was employed by the Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. On 1 October 2014, her employment was terminated (the parties disagreed whether she resigned or was constructively dismissed). She commenced proceedings in the Federal Court alleging contraventions of general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act and the Australian Consumer Law, and breaches of her employment contract. She later commenced separate proceedings in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal alleging constructive dismissal and contraventions of the Equal Opportunity Act.
Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston (No 2)
MTGI (the Trustee for MTGI Trust) initiated proceedings seeking judicial review of two decisions of the Fair Work Commission Full Bench. The Full Bench had refused permission to appeal decisions of Senior Deputy President Boulton awarding David Johnston compensation of 20 weeks' pay plus costs for unfair dismissal. This was the fifth piece of litigation between MTGI and Johnston. MTGI abandoned five of eleven grounds on the eve of hearing.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Yogurberry World Square Pty Ltd
Yogurberry World Square, a frozen yogurt retailer, employed four workers who worked in the Brisbane store. The employer failed to: classify workers correctly under the Fast Food Industry Award 2010; pay minimum and junior rates of pay; pay casual loading or penalty rates for late-night, weekend, and public holiday work; engage workers for minimum three-hour shifts; pay special clothing allowances; contribute to superannuation; and keep adequate wage records or issue pay slips. Related entities YBF Australia (payroll company) and CL Group (master franchisor) were involved in management of the scheme.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (No. 2)
Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd employed six workers under an enterprise agreement providing access to paid sick leave when unable to work due to illness or injury. Between 2014 and 2016, the company refused to provide six named employees access to paid sick leave on multiple occasions when they were ill. The workers had notified management of their illness as required and requested sick leave, but the company refused to recognize their entitlements.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2)
On 16 May 2013, CFMEU official Joseph Myles organized approximately 20 persons with 9 vehicles to blockade Josephs Road in Footscray, preventing vehicular access to the City to Maribyrnong River construction site (Package B Project). On 16 and 17 May 2013, Myles threatened to conduct a 'war' against the project and prevent concrete pouring. The intent was to coerce John Holland and Abigroup to place a CFMEU delegate on the project site as requested by the union.
the Applicant v Chandler Macleod Group Ltd
the Applicant was dismissed from Chandler Macleod Group Ltd. He applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy on 21 June 2013, well outside the 21-day deadline prescribed by section 394 of the Fair Work Act. the Commissioner refused to extend time, finding no exceptional circumstances. the Applicant then sought to appeal this decision to the Full Bench, which also refused extension of time.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Anglo Coal (Callide Management) Pty Ltd
Anglo Coal created three new OCE/Supervisor positions at its Callide Mine in 2014 combining open cut examiner and supervisory duties. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union complained that it was not involved in the recruitment and selection process and that grievance procedures were not followed when the union objected. The positions had supervisory responsibilities and reporting lines to production superintendents, distinct from standard Production Employee Level 3 classifications.
General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v Musicians' Union of Australia
The Musicians' Union of Australia failed to prepare and provide general purpose financial reports to members as required by legislation. These failures occurred across multiple reporting units (Federal Office, Sydney Branch, Melbourne Branch) and spanned multiple financial years from 2007 to 2011. The union did not prepare reports within the required timeframe or distribute them to members before statutory deadlines, nor did it present them at required general meetings.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Eastern Colour Pty Ltd (No 3)
Eastern Colour, a fruit farm, underpaid four casual employees over several years. The employer failed to pay: basic periodic rates under awards; overtime rates for hours over 40 per week; overtime for public holidays; casual loading; special allowances; and superannuation. The farm also failed to keep proper wage records and did not issue pay slips. A director, Louisa Baronio, implemented the scheme. The underpayment totaled approximately $19,034 across the four employees.
General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v Thomson (No 4)
Craig Thomson, National Secretary of the Health Services Union, engaged in multiple contraventions of his duties as a union officer between 2003 and 2007. He caused the union to pay for personal services and expenses including travel costs for himself and his wife, home care services, personal security services, and staff services for political campaign work. He failed to record the true nature of these payments and to maintain proper accounts.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate brought proceedings against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and several individual union officials. The allegations related to union officials' conduct at Lend Lease building sites in Adelaide in October and November 2013. The officials allegedly entered building sites without proper entry notices or exemption certificates, and in some cases acted improperly, hindered or obstructed persons, attempted to coerce a contractor to fly the CFMEU flag on a crane hook, and failed to comply with occupational health and safety requests.
the Applicant v Catholic Education Office Diocese of Parramatta
the Applicant was employed by the Catholic Education Office Diocese of Parramatta. She was dismissed and claimed the dismissal constituted adverse action under s 340 of the Fair Work Act (general protections), and discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act based on sex.
the Applicant v Rigging Rentals WA Pty Ltd
Eric Spence, Clifford McGillivray, and Craig Sweetapple were shareholders in Rigging Rentals WA Pty Ltd (the Company). They initially worked with Lifting by Design Pty Ltd. In 2014, the Respondent and a co-worker demanded the Applicant consent to the allotment of additional shares to them, which would reduce his shareholding to 25%. This demand was made via email and linked to negotiations for selling the company. The Applicant’s employment ended shortly after, and he sought relief under the Corporations Act alleging oppression. The Company cross-claimed for breach of duties by the Applicant.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited (No 2)
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) took legal action against Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Limited and the Respondent, alleging they made misleading claims on their website about the whooping cough vaccine and homeopathy. The ACCC argued these statements breached sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Specifically, the company published articles suggesting the vaccine was ineffective and that homeopathic treatments were a safe alternative.
Kirby v JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd (No 2)
Union officials including Paul Kirby, Beau Malone, and Chris Lynch, holding work health and safety entry permits under the Work Health and Safety Act (NT), sought to exercise rights of entry at the Ichthys On-Shore Construction Project at Blaydin Point. JKC Australia LNG refused entry on grounds including that no relevant worker was present on site, no prior written notice was given, and alleged contraventions had been rectified.
Kirby v JKC Australia LNG Pty Ltd
Union officials holding valid entry permits under the Fair Work Act sought to enter a large construction project site (Ichthys On-shore Construction Project in the Northern Territory) to hold discussions with employees. They provided entry notice specifying the site as 'Ichthys On-shore Construction Project at Blaydin Point'. The site covered 340 hectares with multiple work packages and contractors. The employer refused entry unless more specific sub-areas of the site were nominated.
the Applicant v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd (No 2)
the Applicant was employed as chairman, company secretary, and chief financial officer of Indochine Resources Limited under a written contract for an initial five-year term commencing 1 May 2008. The contract provided for a starting salary of USD $240,000 per annum plus superannuation at 9%, with annual increases of one-fifth plus CPI. It included comprehensive benefits including motor vehicle allowance, overseas living allowances, and paid leave of six weeks per annum. On 21 June 2010, his employment was terminated abruptly without written notice or payment in lieu of notice.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Adams
Seventy-four building workers employed by Crown Construction Services engaged in industrial action on 28 February 2013 at the New Children's Hospital construction site in Nedlands, Western Australia. The workers failed to attend or remain at work as required. A Fair Work Commission order dated 19 February 2013 had prohibited the Crown employees from engaging in or threatening industrial action at the site. The workers knew of this prohibition.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Upton
Bradley Upton, an official of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, attended the Wheatstone liquefied natural gas project near Onslow, Western Australia on two occasions. On 8 October 2012, after being directed to use a sea container meeting room, he responded with obscene verbal abuse about how the CFMEU did business differently. On 13 February 2013, he held a meeting with employees in a residential area of the project despite being offered an alternative location.
Transport Workers Union of Australia v Premier Motor Service Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed by Premier Motor Service, a bus operator, for approximately 25 years and was a union delegate. Premier offered the Applicant the opportunity to undertake charter bus work on 6-7 August 2012 that would provide additional income and a change from regular routes. On 9 August 2012, Premier's General Manager advised the Applicant that the charter work would instead be subcontracted to other providers and the Applicant was reallocated to his usual weekly shift. The Applicant had engaged in industrial activity including union representation.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Cartledge
The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate obtained an interim injunction restraining Jim O'Connor and other CFMEU organisers from attending certain construction sites unless lawfully exercising rights under Part 3-4 of the Fair Work Act. The injunction was issued during proceedings for alleged contraventions of s 500 of the Fair Work Act. O'Connor was alleged to have breached the injunction by attending the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site on 13 May 2014.
Director, Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
On 24 to 26 May 2011, employees engaged in unlawful industrial action at three Brisbane construction sites: Queensland Children's Hospital, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, and Queensland Institute of Medical Research. Union officials including officers of the CFMEU and CEPU were knowingly involved in or party to the industrial action. The parties later agreed to the contraventions and submitted an agreed statement of facts proposing settlement penalties.
the Applicant v Indochine Resources Pty Ltd
the Applicant was employed by Indochine Resources Limited (IRL) as chairman, company secretary, and chief financial officer from 1 May 2008. His employment was terminated on 21 June 2010. IRL admitted being his employer. the Applicant sought compensation for unpaid annual leave of approximately $110,000 and damages for breach of contract exceeding $3 million. Indochine Mining Limited (IML) was formed on 27 January 2010 as a holding company and became the parent of IRL following a restructure.
Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
Element Five Pty Ltd (E5) was head contractor for a building project in Hawthorn, Victoria. The CFMEU wanted E5 to enter into an enterprise agreement. E5 resisted. CFMEU official Danny Berardi made threats to site managers and took action against E5 on 28 June 2013 and 31 July 2013, threatening disruption to scheduled work. Shaun Reardon, another CFMEU official, was involved in the 28 June conduct. The threats and action were intended to coerce E5 into signing an enterprise agreement.
Fair Work Ombudsman v the Respondent
The Applicant operated as a subcontractor in the cleaning services industry. He engaged multiple employees but failed to pay them correctly. Four employees were underpaid between January 2010 and August 2011. They did not receive minimum weekly wages, penalty rates for shiftwork and weekends, public holiday penalty rates, or overtime rates in breach of the Cleaning Services Award 2010. The Applicant also failed to make superannuation contributions, provide annual leave entitlements, issue pay slips, or maintain employment records. Two other parties controlled companies that engaged the Applicant as a subcontractor and failed to take action to ensure his compliance.
Fair Work Commission
The Fair Work Commission is Australia's national workplace relations tribunal.
Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia
The Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia (Division 2) hears the bulk of small-claim and mid-tier employment matters in the federal jurisdiction.
Fair Work Ombudsman
The Fair Work Ombudsman is Australia's national workplace regulator.